Military Base Realignments and Closures
Estimated Costs Have Increased While Savings Estimates Have Decreased Since Fiscal Year 2009 Gao ID: GAO-10-98R November 13, 2009The Department of Defense's (DOD) cost estimates to implement recommendations from the most recent Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round have steadily increased each budget year since 2005. This BRAC round is the fifth such round undertaken by DOD since 1988 and, by our assessment, it is the biggest, most complex, and costliest BRAC round ever. With this round, DOD plans to execute hundreds of BRAC actions affecting over 800 defense locations and relocate over 123,000 personnel. Before it can realize savings from BRAC, DOD must first invest billions of dollars in facility construction, renovation, and other up-front expenses. To implement BRAC 2005, DOD plans to spend nearly $35 billion--an unprecedented amount, given that it has spent only about $25 billion to implement the four previous BRAC rounds combined.
Our review of DOD's fiscal year 2010 BRAC budget indicates that DOD plans to spend more to implement BRAC 2005 recommendations compared to last year's BRAC budget. DOD's estimated one-time costs to implement this BRAC round increased by almost $2.5 billion from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010, bringing the total implementation cost estimate for this BRAC round to $34.9 billion. To place this increase in perspective, in September 2005, the BRAC Commission estimated that it would cost DOD about $21 billion over the 6-year implementation period whereas this estimate is now about $35 billion--an increase of nearly 67 percent. Our analysis shows that over 80 percent of the estimated $2.5 billion in cost increases are associated with 10 recommendations. Military construction costs accounted for the majority of the increase, although other factors such as information technology requirements also contributed to some of the expected cost increases. After DOD implements all of the BRAC 2005 recommendations, which the department is required to do by the statutory deadline of September 2011, our analysis of DOD's fiscal year 2010 budget estimates shows that net annual recurring savings for fiscal year 2012 and beyond will have decreased by almost $94 million to about $3.9 billion, compared to DOD's estimates in fiscal year 2009. As we have previously reported, we believe DOD's net annual recurring savings estimates may be overstated because they include dollar savings from eliminating military personnel positions without corresponding decreases in end-strength. DOD disagrees with our position. The $3.9 billion estimate is calculated using DOD's method, which we nonetheless believe overstates savings. However, we included these estimates for consistency. Our calculations also show that BRAC savings DOD expects to generate over a 20-year period from 2006 through 2025 have declined to $10.9 billion in constant fiscal year 2005 dollars, compared to $13.7 billion that we reported based on the previous year's BRAC budget. To place this decrease in perspective, in September 2005 the BRAC Commission estimated that DOD would save about $36 billion--nearly 70 percent more--over the same 20-year period.
GAO-10-98R, Military Base Realignments and Closures: Estimated Costs Have Increased While Savings Estimates Have Decreased Since Fiscal Year 2009
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-98R
entitled 'Military Base Realignments and Closures: Estimated Costs Have
Increased While Savings Estimates Have Decreased Since Fiscal Year
2009' which was released on November 13, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
GAO-10-98R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
November 13, 2009:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John McCain:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye:
Chairman:
The Honorable Thad Cochran:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Ike Skelton:
Chairman:
The Honorable Howard McKeon:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable John P. Murtha:
Chairman:
The Honorable C. W. Bill Young:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
Subject: Military Base Realignments and Closures: Estimated Costs Have
Increased While Savings Estimates Have Decreased Since Fiscal Year
2009:
The Department of Defense's (DOD) cost estimates to implement
recommendations from the most recent Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC) round have steadily increased each budget year since 2005. This
BRAC round is the fifth such round undertaken by DOD since 1988 and, by
our assessment, it is the biggest, most complex, and costliest BRAC
round ever. With this round, DOD plans to execute hundreds of BRAC
actions affecting over 800 defense locations and relocate over 123,000
personnel. Before it can realize savings from BRAC, DOD must first
invest billions of dollars in facility construction, renovation, and
other up-front expenses. To implement BRAC 2005, DOD plans to spend
nearly $35 billion--an unprecedented amount, given that it has spent
only about $25 billion to implement the four previous BRAC rounds
combined.[Footnote 1]
At the outset of BRAC 2005, the Office of the Secretary of Defense
(OSD) indicated its intent to reshape DOD's installations and realign
DOD forces to meet defense needs for the next 20 years. Moreover, both
DOD and the BRAC Commission reported that their primary consideration
in making recommendations for the BRAC 2005 round was military value.
[Footnote 2] As such, instead of base closures, many of the BRAC 2005
recommendations involve complex realignments, such as designating where
military forces returning to the United States from overseas bases
would be located; establishing joint military medical centers; creating
joint bases; and reconfiguring the defense supply, storage, and
distribution network. The BRAC statute requires DOD to implement all
BRAC 2005 recommendations by September 15, 2011.[Footnote 3]
Although DOD used military value selection criteria as the highest
priority in developing BRAC recommendations, anticipated savings
resulting from implementing the recommendations remained an important
consideration in justifying the need for the 2005 BRAC round. In 2001
testimony before Congress, the Secretary of Defense stated that another
BRAC round would generate recurring savings the department could use
for other defense programs. However, we have reported since 2005 that
DOD does not regularly review savings estimates to ensure that the
estimates continue to represent the most likely outcomes for
anticipated savings.[Footnote 4]
The House Armed Services Committee report accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 directed the Comptroller
General to monitor the implementation of recommendations for the 2005
round of closures and realignments of military installations made
pursuant to section 2914 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Act of 1990.[Footnote 5]This report is in response to that
congressional report mandate. A list of GAO's prior work related to
military base closures and realignments since the Secretary of Defense
submitted his proposed BRAC actions to the BRAC Commission for review
in May 2005 can be found at the end of this report. For this report,
our objectives were to evaluate (1) changes in BRAC estimated costs
from DOD's fiscal year 2009 budget submission to Congress to the fiscal
year 2010 budget submission and identify factors that caused these cost
estimates to change, and (2) changes in projected BRAC savings
estimates from the fiscal year 2009 budget submission to the fiscal
year 2010 budget submission.
Scope and Methodology:
To evaluate changes in BRAC estimated costs from fiscal year 2009 to
fiscal year 2010, we analyzed DOD's BRAC budget submission for fiscal
years 2009 and 2010, noting BRAC recommendations that had the largest
changes in estimated costs, obtained business plans for those
recommendations, and discussed with the military services and defense
agencies responsible for implementation the reasons for the changes. We
used DOD's BRAC budget submission in making cost comparisons because
these budget submissions form the basis on which DOD seeks
appropriations from Congress. Further, to evaluate changes in projected
annual recurring savings from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010, we
used data OSD provided to us for estimated savings in fiscal year 2012-
-the year after OSD expects all recommendations to be completed--
because these data more fully captured these expected savings. To
assess the 20-year savings estimates, we calculated these estimates
using data in DOD's fiscal year 2010 BRAC budget submission to Congress
by applying the same formulas and assumptions as the BRAC Commission
used in 2005 to calculate these savings for comparison. Although the
Office of Management and Budget would prescribe the use of slightly
different assumptions to calculate these estimates today, we used the
factors and assumptions used by the BRAC Commission for consistency.
Finally, we used our calculations to determine which BRAC
recommendations DOD expects to cost the most and save the most both
annually and over a 20-year period. We determined that the data used
were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of making costs and savings
comparisons for BRAC recommendations.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2009 to November 2009 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Summary:
Our review of DOD's fiscal year 2010 BRAC budget indicates that DOD
plans to spend more to implement BRAC 2005 recommendations compared to
last year's BRAC budget. DOD's estimated one-time costs to implement
this BRAC round increased by almost $2.5 billion from fiscal year 2009
to fiscal year 2010, bringing the total implementation cost estimate
for this BRAC round to $34.9 billion. To place this increase in
perspective, in September 2005, the BRAC Commission estimated that it
would cost DOD about $21 billion over the 6-year implementation period
whereas this estimate is now about $35 billion--an increase of nearly
67 percent.[Footnote 6] Our analysis shows that over 80 percent of the
estimated $2.5 billion in cost increases are associated with 10
recommendations. Military construction costs accounted for the majority
of the increase, although other factors such as information technology
requirements also contributed to some of the expected cost increases.
After DOD implements all of the BRAC 2005 recommendations, which the
department is required to do by the statutory deadline of September
2011, our analysis of DOD's fiscal year 2010 budget estimates shows
that net annual recurring savings for fiscal year 2012 and beyond will
have decreased by almost $94 million to about $3.9 billion, compared to
DOD's estimates in fiscal year 2009. As we have previously reported, we
believe DOD's net annual recurring savings estimates may be overstated
because they include dollar savings from eliminating military personnel
positions without corresponding decreases in end-strength. DOD
disagrees with our position. The $3.9 billion estimate is calculated
using DOD's method, which we nonetheless believe overstates savings.
However, we included these estimates for consistency. Our calculations
also show that BRAC savings DOD expects to generate over a 20-year
period from 2006 through 2025 have declined to $10.9 billion in
constant fiscal year 2005 dollars, compared to $13.7 billion that we
reported based on the previous year's BRAC budget.[Footnote 7] To place
this decrease in perspective, in September 2005 the BRAC Commission
estimated that DOD would save about $36 billion--nearly 70 percent
more--over the same 20-year period.
We provided DOD with a draft copy of this report to obtain agency
comments. DOD concurred with the findings of our report and these
comments are reprinted at the end of this report.
Estimated BRAC One-Time Costs Continue to Increase:
Our analysis of DOD's fiscal year 2010 BRAC budget shows that DOD plans
to spend more to implement its BRAC recommendations compared to last
year's BRAC budget. DOD's estimate of one-time costs to implement 2005
BRAC recommendations increased by about $2.5 billion, to a total
estimated cost of $34.9 billion compared to $32.4 billion DOD estimated
in its fiscal year 2009 budget as shown in table 1. The current cost
estimate of $34.9 billion represents an increase of nearly 67 percent
from the September 2005 BRAC Commission estimate of $21 billion.
Table 1: Comparison of One-Time BRAC Implementation Costs by Military
Services and Defense Agencies, Fiscal Year 2009 to Fiscal Year 2010
(Dollars in millions):
Military services and defense agencies: Tricare Management Activity;
Fiscal year 2009 cost estimate: $2,269;
Fiscal year 2010 cost estimate: $3,357;
Net cost increase: $1,088.
Military services and defense agencies: Army;
Fiscal year 2009 cost estimate: $17,335;
Fiscal year 2010 cost estimate: $18,213;
Net cost increase: $878.
Military services and defense agencies: Washington Headquarters
Services;
Fiscal year 2009 cost estimate: $1,085;
Fiscal year 2010 cost estimate: $1,379;
Net cost increase: $294.
Military services and defense agencies: National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency;
Fiscal year 2009 cost estimate: $2,329;
Fiscal year 2010 cost estimate: $2,476;
Net cost increase: $147.
Military services and defense agencies: All other DOD agencies funding
BRAC;
Fiscal year 2009 cost estimate: $2,198;
Fiscal year 2010 cost estimate: $2,341;
Net cost increase: $142.
Military services and defense agencies: Navy;
Fiscal year 2009 cost estimate: $3,291;
Fiscal year 2010 cost estimate: $3,372;
Net cost increase: $81.
Military services and defense agencies: Air Force;
Fiscal year 2009 cost estimate: $3,926;
Fiscal year 2010 cost estimate: $3,784;
Net cost increase: ($142).
Military services and defense agencies: Total costs;
Fiscal year 2009 cost estimate: $32,433;
Fiscal year 2010 cost estimate: $34,922;
Net cost increase: $2,488.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
Notes: Amounts are in current dollars (i.e., includes projected
inflation).
Totals may not equal the sum of the numbers in each column, due to
rounding.
[End of table]
Our analysis of DOD military service and defense agencies show that
Tricare Management Activity had the largest cost increase from fiscal
year 2009 to fiscal year 2010, an increase of nearly 48 percent or
almost $1.09 billion. Tricare Management Activity is contributing to
the funding of five BRAC recommendations involving the clinical aspects
of the BRAC recommendations put forth by DOD's medical joint cross
service group, such as the realignment of Walter Reed Army Medical
Center to include the construction of a new community hospital and a
dental clinic at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, and the expansion of the
National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda, Maryland. Further, table 1
shows that the Army portion of BRAC spending increased by $878 million
or about 5 percent. The Army plans to spend the most on BRAC
implementation compared to other defense services and agencies. The Air
Force is the only military service that anticipates spending less to
implement BRAC 2005 recommendations compared to its estimates in the
fiscal year 2009 budget.
Estimated cost increases to implement the 2005 BRAC round can be
attributed primarily to 10 BRAC recommendations in which increases in
expected construction costs were the primary cost driver. Our analysis
shows that, of the 182 BRAC recommendations made in the 2005 round, 10
of those recommendations account for 83 percent, or about $2 billion,
of the nearly $2.5 billion increase in estimated one-time costs from
fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010. Table 2 shows the estimated cost
and the net cost increase to implement each of those 10
recommendations, according to the BRAC budgets for fiscal years 2009
and 2010.
Table 2: BRAC Recommendations with the Largest Increases in One-Time
Estimated Costs from Fiscal Year 2009 to Fiscal Year 2010 (Dollars in
millions):
BRAC Recommendation: Realign Walter Reed Army Medical Center to
Bethesda National Naval Medical Center, MD and to Fort Belvoir, VA;
Fiscal year 2009 cost estimate: $1,640[A];
Fiscal year 2010 cost estimate: $2,418;
Net cost increase: $779.
BRAC Recommendation: Realign Army Maneuver Training to Fort Benning,
GA;
Table 2: BRAC Recommendations with the Largest Increases in One-Time
Fiscal year 2009 cost estimate: $1,509;
Fiscal year 2010 cost estimate: $1,763;
Net cost increase: $254.
BRAC Recommendation: Co-locate miscellaneous OSD, defense agency, and
field activity leased locations in the National Capital Region;
Fiscal year 2009 cost estimate: $1,194;
Fiscal year 2010 cost estimate: $1,440;
Net cost increase: $245.
BRAC Recommendation: Close Fort Monmouth, NJ;
Fiscal year 2009 cost estimate: $1,595;
Fiscal year 2010 cost estimate: $1,751;
Net cost increase: $156.
BRAC Recommendation: Establish San Antonio Regional Medical Center and
realign enlisted medical training to Fort Sam Houston, TX;
Fiscal year 2009 cost estimate: $1,724;
Fiscal year 2010 cost estimate: $1,876;
Net cost increase: $152.
BRAC Recommendation: Realign to establish Combat Service Support Center
at Fort Lee, VA;
Fiscal year 2009 cost estimate: $1,270;
Fiscal year 2010 cost estimate: $1,418;
Net cost increase: $148.
BRAC Recommendation: Relocate medical command headquarters in the
National Capital Region;
Fiscal year 2009 cost estimate: $43;
Fiscal year 2010 cost estimate: $161;
Net cost increase: $118.
BRAC Recommendation: Close National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
leased locations and realign others at Fort Belvoir, VA;
Fiscal year 2009 cost estimate: $2,441;
Fiscal year 2010 cost estimate: $2,554;
Net cost increase: $113.
BRAC Recommendation: Close Fort Gillem, GA;
Fiscal year 2009 cost estimate: $101;
Fiscal year 2010 cost estimate: $160;
Net cost increase: $59.
BRAC Recommendation: Relocate Army headquarters and field operating
activities in the National Capital Region;
Fiscal year 2009 cost estimate: $444;
Fiscal year 2010 cost estimate: $490;
Net cost increase: $47.
Total one-time estimated costs from the BRAC recommendations listed
above:
Fiscal year 2009 cost estimate: $11,961;
Fiscal year 2010 cost estimate: $14,031;
Net cost increase: $2,071.
Total one-time estimated costs for all recommendations:
Fiscal year 2009 cost estimate: $32,433;
Fiscal year 2010 cost estimate: $34,922;
Net cost increase: $2,488.
Percentage of increase in one-time costs from recommendations listed
above of all recommendations: 83%.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
Notes: Amounts are in current dollars (i.e., includes projected
inflation).
Totals may not equal the sum of the numbers in each column, due to
rounding.
[A] This amount does not include an additional $416 million already
received as part of the fiscal year 2008 supplemental appropriations
act and approximately $263 million that was appropriated as part of the
fiscal year 2009 supplemental appropriations act to help expedite
medical facility construction at National Naval Medical Center,
Bethesda, Maryland, and Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
[End of table]
Military construction costs account for most of the estimated increase
in costs to implement 7 of the 10 recommendations shown in table 2.
Other factors, such as operation and maintenance costs also contributed
to some increases from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010. We found
that estimated costs for those 10 recommendations increased due to the
following reasons.
* Realign Walter Reed Army Medical Center to Bethesda National Naval
Medical Center, Maryland and to Fort Belvoir, Virginia. One-time
implementation costs increased by $779 million from fiscal year 2009 to
fiscal year 2010, a 48 percent increase, mostly due to higher estimated
construction costs. These cost increases include about $263 million in
funding provided as part of the supplemental appropriations act for
fiscal year 2009 to help expedite medical facility construction at Fort
Belvoir and Bethesda. Also, Tricare Management Activity officials told
us that other reasons for cost increases include higher anticipated
costs for moving and purchasing of equipment, which fall in the
operation and maintenance cost category.
* Realign Army Maneuver Training to Fort Benning, Georgia. One-time
implementation costs increased by $254 million from fiscal year 2009 to
fiscal year 2010, a 17 percent increase. The majority of this increase
in one-time implementation costs was in military construction costs for
five new projects totaling about $164 million that were added to build
new training infrastructure to establish the Maneuver Center at Fort
Benning.
* Co-locate miscellaneous OSD, defense agency, and field activity
leased locations in the National Capital Region. One-time
implementation costs increased $245 million from fiscal year 2009 to
fiscal year 2010, a 21 percent increase. While some cost categories
decreased, Army officials told us that the net cost increase was
realized mostly in military construction associated with the decision
to acquire land and construct a new office building at the Mark Center
Office Complex, Alexandria, Virginia, about 10 miles away from Fort
Belvoir.
* Close Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. One-time implementation costs
increased $156 million from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010, a 10
percent increase. Our analysis shows that about $70 million of the cost
increase was attributed to military construction costs at Aberdeen
Proving Ground, Maryland, for constructing and renovating facilities
for the Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence,
Surveillance and Reconnaissance Center of Excellence for Communications
and Electronics Laboratories. Army officials told us that they decided
to construct more new buildings in lieu of renovating older buildings
at Aberdeen, and they anticipate higher costs in various operation and
maintenance activities such as facility closures at Fort Monmouth and
the movement of personnel to Aberdeen.
* Establish San Antonio Regional Medical Center and realign enlisted
medical training to Fort Sam Houston, Texas. One-time implementation
costs increased $152 million from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010,
an 8 percent increase. According to Tricare Management Activity
officials, the majority of this increase is associated with the San
Antonio Regional Medical Center ($113 million) and will pay for various
operation and maintenance activities such as moving people and
equipping the medical center.
* Realign to establish Combat Service Support Center at Fort Lee,
Virginia. One-time implementation costs increased $148 million from
fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010, a 12 percent increase. While
other cost elements decreased, facility construction costs drove the
majority of the expected cost increase at Fort Lee.
* Relocate medical command headquarters in the National Capital Region.
One-time implementation costs increased $118 million from fiscal year
2009 to fiscal year 2010, a 272 percent increase. Tricare Management
Activity officials told us that it will now cost more to lease
workspace for a higher number of personnel expected to move. These
officials also told us that additional funds were needed to comply with
anti-terrorism force protection requirements and to outfit the
workspace of the leased space, as well as to move personnel.
* Close National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency leased locations and
realign others at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. One-time implementation costs
increased $113 million from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010, a 5
percent increase. All of this expected cost increase is to respond to
more information technology requirements at the agency including
hardware, software, installation, testing, and operations to
consolidate these leased locations to one location at Fort Belvoir.
* Close Fort Gillem, Georgia. One-time implementation costs increased
$59 million from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010, a 58 percent
increase. This increase is mostly due to military construction, such as
the construction of a new Army Reserve Equipment Concentration Site at
Fort Benning, Georgia, and various operation and maintenance
activities.
* Relocate Army headquarters and field operating activities in the
National Capital Region. One-time implementation costs increased $47
million from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010, an 11 percent
increase. While this increase was offset by expected decreasing costs
in other categories, the majority of this cost increase is due to the
additional constructing and renovating of facilities for the movement
of the Army Installation Management Command Headquarters to Fort Sam
Houston, Texas, and the movement of the Army Security Assistance
Command Headquarters to Redstone Arsenal, Alabama.
DOD's latest BRAC budget also shows that overall estimated construction
costs to implement BRAC 2005 recommendations increased by nearly $1.9
billion compared to last year's BRAC budget. However, Army officials
told us that many construction contracts were awarded when the
construction market was still strong, and construction bids came in
higher than expected. However, as table 3 shows, some decreases
occurred in other cost categories, particularly operations and
maintenance.
Table 3: Comparison of BRAC Cost Categories from Fiscal Year 2009 to
Fiscal Year 2010 (Dollars in millions):
BRAC cost category: Military construction;
Fiscal year 2009 cost estimate: $22,765;
Fiscal year 2010 cost estimate: $24,629;
Net cost increase: $1,864.
BRAC cost category: Other and miscellaneous[A];
Fiscal year 2009 cost estimate: $2,009;
Fiscal year 2010 cost estimate: $2,887;
Net cost increase: $877.
BRAC cost category: Operations and maintenance;
Fiscal year 2009 cost estimate: $7,134;
Fiscal year 2010 cost estimate: $6,885;
Net cost increase: ($249).
BRAC cost category: Environmental;
Fiscal year 2009 cost estimate: $525;
Fiscal year 2010 cost estimate: $521;
Net cost increase: ($4).
Total costs:
Fiscal year 2009 cost estimate: $32,433;
Fiscal year 2010 cost estimate: $34,922;
Net cost increase: $2,488.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
Note: Totals may not equal the sum of the numbers in each column, due
to rounding.
[A] The other cost category includes items such as information
technology while miscellaneous costs includes various items such as
military personnel permanent change of station, homeowners assistance
program, one-time costs funded outside the BRAC account, and other DOD-
made funding adjustments.
[End of table]
In addition, our analysis of DOD's fiscal year 2010 budget estimates
indicates that the planned implementation of 29 recommendations (or
about 16 percent of the total 182 recommendations) is expected to
account for about 72 percent of all the one-time costs needed to
implement BRAC 2005. (See enclosure I for a listing of these
recommendations from the 2005 BRAC round that DOD expects to cost the
most.)
Estimated BRAC Savings Have Decreased:
Our comparison of DOD's fiscal year 2010 budget data to fiscal year
2009 budget data shows that BRAC estimated net annual recurring savings
continue to decrease. Further, BRAC savings expected over a 20-year
period ending in 2025 have also decreased.
Estimated Net Annual Recurring Savings Have Decreased:
Our analysis of DOD's fiscal year 2010 budget data shows that DOD's
estimates of the net annual recurring savings that the department
expects to realize after all of the 2005 BRAC recommendations have been
implemented decreased by almost $94 million compared to the fiscal year
2009 BRAC budget, to about $3.9 billion.[Footnote 8] As we have
previously reported, we and the BRAC Commission believe that DOD's net
annual recurring savings estimates are overstated because they include
savings from eliminating military personnel positions without
corresponding decreases in end-strength. DOD disagrees with our
position. Savings for eliminating military personnel positions as
defined by DOD's approach account for nearly half of the total
estimated annual recurring savings of $3.9 billion using data from
DOD's fiscal year 2010 BRAC budget. In contrast, the BRAC Commission
estimated in September 2005 that the current BRAC round would result in
net annual recurring savings of about $4.2 billion.
The largest decrease in net annual recurring savings since fiscal year
2009 is a reduction of about $68 million annually to relocate certain
medical command headquarters to a single, contiguous site in the
Washington, D.C. area. According to DOD's budget data for fiscal year
2010, this recommendation is now expected to result in a net cost of
nearly $1 million per year rather than a savings. A Tricare Management
Activity official, who has responsibility for managing the
implementation of this recommendation, told us that the decision to
lease a facility in the Washington, D.C. area, instead of building or
renovating an existing facility, primarily contributed to the decrease
in expected net savings.
The largest increase in estimated net annual recurring savings since
fiscal year 2009 is an increase of about $16 million to realign supply,
storage, and distribution functions from the military services to the
Defense Logistics Agency. These estimated savings increased from about
$152 million in the fiscal year 2009 budget to $168 million in the
fiscal year 2010 budget. Although annual recurring savings estimates
increased using DOD's data from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010,
we reported in July 2009 that certain BRAC actions related to parts of
this recommendation contain unrealistic savings estimates.[Footnote 9]
For example, the Defense Logistics Agency actions for consolidating
supply, storage, and distribution functions at 13 military service
depot maintenance locations involve practices that count some savings
that we believe are not attributable to BRAC actions. DOD concurred
with our recommendation to update its savings estimates. Further, OSD
BRAC officials told us that they do not expect to begin to accrue the
full amount of net annual recurring savings until 2012 because, as we
reported in January 2009, many of the 2005 BRAC recommendations are not
scheduled to be completed until close to the September 15, 2011,
deadline.[Footnote 10]
In addition, our analysis of the 2005 BRAC round, based on DOD's fiscal
year 2010 budget estimates, indicates that relatively few
recommendations are responsible for a majority of the expected savings.
Specifically, we determined that the planned implementation of 24
recommendations (or about 13 percent) is expected to account for about
80 percent of the expected net annual recurring savings. (See enclosure
II for a list of the BRAC recommendations expected to save the most
annually.)
20-Year Savings Have Decreased, and It Will Take Longer for DOD to
Recoup Up-Front Costs:
Given that the BRAC budget shows that DOD expects to spend more and
save less compared to last year's budget, the projected savings over 20
years have also decreased. Our calculations show that the 20-year
savings anticipated from the 2005 BRAC round have declined by $2.8
billion to about $10.9 billion, compared to the $13.7 billion that we
estimated based on fiscal year 2009 budget data.[Footnote 11] In
addition, our analysis shows that the number of BRAC recommendations
that are expected to achieve no net savings at all over the 20-year
period has continued to increase. Based on our analysis, 76 out of 182
recommendations are now expected to result in no net savings over 20
years, compared to 74 we identified using DOD's fiscal year 2009 budget
data, and 30 estimated by the BRAC Commission in 2005. OSD BRAC
officials told us that despite producing fewer savings than
anticipated, the department expects that the implementation of this
BRAC round will produce capabilities that will enhance military value
in addition to enhanced defense operations and management. Also, our
analysis of the fiscal year 2010 BRAC budget shows that DOD will not
recoup its up-front costs to implement BRAC recommendations until 2018--
5 years later than the BRAC Commission's estimates indicated that
payback would be achieved as shown in figure 1.
Figure 1: Time to Recoup BRAC Costs:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph]
Constant fiscal year 2005 dollars (in millions):
Fiscal year: 2006;
Cumulative one-time costs: $50.55;
Cumulative net savings: $1,494.87.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Cumulative one-time costs: $629.44;
Cumulative net savings: $6,869.74.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Cumulative one-time costs: $1,642.51;
Cumulative net savings: $14,757.9.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Cumulative one-time costs: $3,382.14;
Cumulative net savings: $22,979.8.
Fiscal year: 2010;
Cumulative one-time costs: $5,884.3;
Cumulative net savings: $29,766.1.
Fiscal year: 2011;
Cumulative one-time costs: $9,052.99;
Cumulative net savings: $31,926.7.
Fiscal year: 2012;
Cumulative one-time costs: $12,333.9;
Cumulative net savings: $31,926.7.
Fiscal year: 2013;
Cumulative one-time costs: $15,614.8;
Cumulative net savings: $31,926.7.
Fiscal year: 2014;
Cumulative one-time costs: $18,895.6;
Cumulative net savings: $31,926.7.
Fiscal year: 2015;
Cumulative one-time costs: $22,176.5;
Cumulative net savings: $31,926.7.
Fiscal year: 2016;
Cumulative one-time costs: $25,457.4;
Cumulative net savings: $31,926.7.
Fiscal year: 2017;
Cumulative one-time costs: $28,738.3;
Cumulative net savings: $31,926.7.
Fiscal year: 2018;
Cumulative one-time costs: $32,019.1;
Cumulative net savings: $31,926.7.
Fiscal year: 2019;
Cumulative one-time costs: $35,300;
Cumulative net savings: $31,926.7.
Fiscal year: 2020;
Cumulative one-time costs: $38,580.9;
Cumulative net savings: $31,926.7.
Fiscal year: 2021;
Cumulative one-time costs: $41,861.8;
Cumulative net savings: $31,926.7.
Fiscal year: 2022;
Cumulative one-time costs: $45,142.7;
Cumulative net savings: $31,926.7.
Fiscal year: 2023;
Cumulative one-time costs: $48,432.5;
Cumulative net savings: $31,926.7.
Fiscal year: 2024;
Cumulative one-time costs: $51,704.4;
Cumulative net savings: $31,926.7.
Fiscal year: 2025;
Cumulative one-time costs: $54,985.3;
Cumulative net savings: $31,926.7.
[End of Figure]
Further, we determined that 29 BRAC recommendations (about 16 percent)
account for about 85 percent of the expected savings over 20 years.
(See enclosure III for a listing of these recommendations.)
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft copy of this report to DOD for review and comment.
In response, DOD concurred with the findings of our report, and stated
that the report accurately characterizes the cost growth that has
occurred from the fiscal year 2009 President's Budget to the fiscal
year 2010 President's Budget. However, DOD noted that as it has stated
previously, even though the BRAC 2005 round is costing more and savings
are less than originally estimated in 2005, implementation of these
recommendations is an important element of the department's ongoing
effort to reshape its infrastructure to respond to global challenges.
DOD also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as
appropriate. DOD's written comments are reprinted in enclosure IV.
We are sending copies of this correspondence to interested
congressional committees; the Secretary of Defense; the secretaries of
the Army, Navy, and Air Force; Commandant of the Marine Corps; and the
Director, Office of Management and Budget. In addition, the report will
be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please
contact me on (202) 512-4523 or by e-mail at leporeb@gao.gov. Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs
are on the last page of this report. GAO staff that made major
contributions to this report include Laura Talbott, Assistant Director;
Vijay Barnabas; John Beauchamp; Susan Ditto; Brandon Jones; Gregory
Marchand; and Charles Perdue.
Signed by:
Brian J. Lepore, Director:
Defense Capabilities and Management:
Enclosure I: BRAC Recommendations DOD Expects to Cost the Most:
Table 4 lists individual base realignment and closure (BRAC)
recommendations that the Department of Defense (DOD) expects to cost
the most to implement based on its fiscal year 2010 budget submission
to Congress. DOD expects 29 recommendations (16 percent) to generate
about 72 percent of the one-time cost to implement BRAC recommendations
during fiscal years 2006 through September 15, 2011.
Table 4: BRAC Recommendations DOD Expects to Cost the Most to Implement
(Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011) (Current year dollars in millions):
Recommendation: Realign Operational Army (Integrated Global Presence
and Basing Strategy);
One-time cost estimate: $2,988.
Recommendation: Close National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency leased
locations and realign others at Fort Belvoir, VA;
One-time cost estimate: $2,554.
Recommendation: Realign Walter Reed Army Medical Center to Bethesda
National Naval Medical Center, MD and to Fort Belvoir, VA;
One-time cost estimate: $2,418.
Recommendation: Establish San Antonio Regional Medical Center and
realign enlisted medical training to Fort Sam Houston, TX;
One-time cost estimate: $1,876.
Recommendation: Realign Maneuver Training to Fort Benning, GA;
One-time cost estimate: $1,763.
Recommendation: Close Fort Monmouth, NJ;
One-time cost estimate: $1,751.
Recommendation: Co-locate miscellaneous OSD, defense agency, and field
activity leased locations;
One-time cost estimate: $1,440.
Recommendation: Realign to establish Combat Service Support Center at
Fort Lee, VA;
One-time cost estimate: $1,418.
Recommendation: Close Fort McPherson, GA;
One-time cost estimate: $806.
Recommendation: Realign Fort Hood, TX;
One-time cost estimate: $623.
Recommendation: Consolidate Defense Information Systems Agency at Fort
Meade, MD;
One-time cost estimate: $602.
Recommendation: Close Brooks City-Base, TX;
One-time cost estimate: $596.
Recommendation: Realign supply, storage, and distribution management;
One-time cost estimate: $530.
Recommendation: Reserve Component Transformation, TX;
One-time cost estimate: $528.
Recommendation: Relocate Army headquarters and field operating
activities;
One-time cost estimate: $491.
Recommendation: Co-locate military department investigation agencies
with DOD Counterintelligence and Security Agency at Marine Corps Base
Quantico, VA;
One-time cost estimate: $478.
Recommendation: Realign to create a Naval Integrated Weapons and
Armaments Research, Development, and Acquisition, Test and Evaluation
Center mostly at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, CA;
One-time cost estimate: $407.
Recommendation: Consolidate/co-locate active and reserve personnel and
recruiting centers for Army and Air Force;
One-time cost estimate: $390.
Recommendation: Co-locate missile and space defense agencies at
Redstone Arsenal, AL;
One-time cost estimate: $387.
Recommendation: Consolidate depot level reparable procurement
management;
One-time cost estimate: $369.
Recommendation: Realign Fort Bragg, NC;
One-time cost estimate: $357.
Recommendation: Close Fort Monroe, VA;
One-time cost estimate: $319.
Recommendation: Consolidate Defense Finance and Accounting Service;
One-time cost estimate: $316.
Recommendation: Close Naval Air Station Brunswick, ME;
One-time cost estimate: $308.
Recommendation: Close Naval Air Station Willow Grove, PA and realign
Cambria Regional Airport, Johnstown, PA;
One-time cost estimate: $299.
Recommendation: Realign to relocate Air Defense Artillery Center and
School at Fort Sill, OK;
One-time cost estimate: $275.
Recommendation: Realign defense research service-led laboratories at
multiple locations;
One-time cost estimate: $273.
Recommendation: Reserve Component Transformation, OK;
One-time cost estimate: $268.
Recommendation: Realign to create joint centers of excellence for
chemical, biological, and medical research and development and
acquisition;
One-time cost estimate: $254.
Total one-time estimated costs from the recommendations listed above:
One-time cost estimate: $25,084.
Total one-time estimated costs from all recommendations:
One-time cost estimate: $34,922.
Percentage of one-time costs from recommendations listed above of all
recommendations: 72%.
Source: GAO analysis based on DOD's fiscal year 2010 budget data.
Note: Totals may not equal the sum of the numbers in each column, due
to rounding.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Enclosure II: BRAC Recommendations DOD Expects to Save the Most
Annually:
Table 5 lists individual base realignment and closure (BRAC)
recommendations that the Department of Defense (DOD) expects to save
the most annually after it has implemented the recommendations based on
its fiscal year 2010 budget submission. DOD expects 24 recommendations
(13 percent) to generate 80 percent of the net annual recurring
savings.
Table 5: BRAC Recommendations DOD Expects to Save the Most Annually
(Current year dollars in millions:
Recommendation: Realign to establish fleet readiness centers;
Net annual recurring savings[A]: $304.
Recommendation: Realign Cannon Air Force Base, NM[B];
Net annual recurring savings[A]: $260.
Recommendation: Consolidate Defense Finance and Accounting Service;
Net annual recurring savings[A]: $250.
Recommendation: Realign Pope Air Force Base, NC;
Net annual recurring savings[A]: $212.
Recommendation: Realign Walter Reed Army Medical Center to Bethesda
National Naval Medical Center, MD and to Fort Belvoir, VA;
Net annual recurring savings[A]: $172.
Recommendation: Consolidate/co-locate active and reserve personnel and
recruiting centers for Army and Air Force;
Net annual recurring savings[A]: $170.
Recommendation: Realign supply, storage, and distribution management;
Net annual recurring savings[A]: $168.
Recommendation: Consolidate depot level reparable procurement
management;
Net annual recurring savings[A]: $159.
Recommendation: Close Fort Monmouth, NJ;
Net annual recurring savings[A]: $154.
Recommendation: Realign to establish Combat Service Support Center at
Fort Lee, VA;
Net annual recurring savings[A]: $148.
Recommendation: Realign Maneuver Training to Fort Benning, GA;
Net annual recurring savings[A]: $133.
Recommendation: Establish San Antonio Regional Medical Center and
realign enlisted medical training to Fort Sam Houston, TX;
Net annual recurring savings[A]: $104.
Recommendation: Close Naval Air Station Brunswick, ME;
Net annual recurring savings[A]: $100.
Recommendation: IL; Table 5: BRAC
Net annual recurring savings[A]: $97.
Recommendation: Close Fort McPherson, GA;
Net annual recurring savings[A]: $94.
Recommendation: Close Brooks City-Base, TX;
Net annual recurring savings[A]: $92.
Recommendation: Realign by converting medical inpatient services to
clinics at various installations;
Net annual recurring savings[A]: $91.
Co-locate miscellaneous OSD, defense agency, and field activity leased
locations;
Net annual recurring savings[A]: $72.
Recommendation: Close Naval Station Ingleside, TX and realign Naval Air
Station Corpus Christi, TX;
Net annual recurring savings[A]: $69.
Recommendation: Realign to create a Naval Integrated Weapons and
Armaments Research, Development, and Acquisition, Test and Evaluation
Center mostly at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, CA;
Net annual recurring savings[A]: $68.
Recommendation: Close Fort Monroe, VA;
Net annual recurring savings[A]: $65.
Recommendation: Close National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency leased
locations and realign others at Fort Belvoir, VA;
Net annual recurring savings[A]: $57.
Recommendation: Realign to relocate Air Defense Artillery Center and
School at Fort Sill, OK;
Net annual recurring savings[A]: $50.
Recommendation: Close Naval Air Station Willow Grove, PA and realign
Cambria Regional Airport, Johnstown, PA;
Net annual recurring savings[A]: $46.
Total net annual recurring savings from the recommendations listed
above;
Net annual recurring savings[A]: $3,135.
Total net annual recurring savings from all recommendations;
Net annual recurring savings[A]: $3,907.
Percentage of net annual recurring savings from recommendations listed
above of all recommendations: 80%.
Source: GAO analysis based on DOD data.
Note: Totals may not equal the sum of the numbers in each column, due
to rounding.
[A] Data provided by DOD for fiscal year 2012 expected savings.
[B] In May 2005, DOD proposed closing Cannon AFB, New Mexico. In
September 2005, the BRAC Commission stated that Cannon could remain
open if DOD identified a new mission for the base. Subsequently, the
Air Force announced in June 2006 that Cannon will remain open because
it plans to activate a new mission at the base. The Air Force BRAC
Office said it claimed these savings because the decision to reallocate
Air Force resources and mission to Cannon was made after the BRAC
recommendation was approved and was therefore, a non-BRAC programmatic
decision.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Enclosure III: BRAC Recommendations DOD Expects to Save the Most Over a
20-year Period:
Table 6 lists individual base realignment and closure (BRAC)
recommendations that the Department of Defense (DOD) expects to save
the most over a 20-year period. DOD expects 29 recommendations (16
percent) to generate more than 85 percent of the 20-year savings using
fiscal year 2010 BRAC budget data.
Table 6: BRAC Recommendations DOD Expects to Save the Most Over a 20-
Year Period (Fiscal Years 2006 through 2025) (Constant fiscal year 2005
dollars in millions):
Recommendation: Realign to establish fleet readiness centers;
20-year net present value[A]: $3,326.
Recommendation: Realign Cannon Air Force Base, NM[B];
20-year net present value[A]: $2,801.
Recommendation: Consolidate Defense Finance and Accounting Service;
20-year net present value[A]: $2,416.
Realign Pope Air Force Base, NC;
20-year net present value[A]: $2,355.
Recommendation: Consolidate/co-locate active and reserve personnel and
recruiting centers for Army and Air Force;
20-year net present value[A]: $1,405.
Recommendation: Realign supply, storage, and distribution management;
20-year net present value[A]: $1,380.
Recommendation: Consolidate depot level reparable procurement
management;
20-year net present value[A]: $1,378.
Recommendation: Consolidate Transportation Command components at Scott
Air Force Base, IL;
20-year net present value[A]: $896.
Recommendation: Realign by converting medical inpatient services to
clinics at various installations;
20-year net present value[A]: $839.
Recommendation: Close Naval Air Station Brunswick, ME;
20-year net present value[A]: $706.
Recommendation: Close Naval Station Ingleside, TX and realign Naval Air
Station Corpus Christi, TX;
20-year net present value[A]: $473.
Recommendation: Close Naval Station Pascagoula, MS;
20-year net present value[A]: $459.
Recommendation: Realign commodity management privatization;
20-year net present value[A]: $416.
Recommendation: Close Brooks City-Base, TX;
20-year net present value[A]: $408.
Recommendation: Close Naval Air Station Atlanta, GA;
20-year net present value[A]: $352.
Recommendation: Close Fort Monroe, VA;
20-year net present value[A]: $300.
Recommendation: Realign to consolidate maritime command, control,
communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance, research, development, and acquisition, test and
evaluation functions at multiple locations;
20-year net present value[A]: $299.
Recommendation: Realign to create a Naval Integrated Weapons and
Armaments Research, Development, and Acquisition, Test and Evaluation
Center mostly at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, CA;
20-year net present value[A]: $296.
Recommendation: Realign Army Reserve Command and Control - Northeast;
20-year net present value[A]: $272.
Recommendation: Co-locate miscellaneous Army leased locations;
20-year net present value[A]: $263.
Recommendation: Realign Mountain Home Air Force Base, ID;
20-year net present value[A]: $262.
Recommendation: Establish joint bases at multiple locations;
20-year net present value[A]: $254.
Recommendation: Close Fort McPherson, GA;
20-year net present value[A]: $249.
Recommendation: Close Fort Gillem, GA;
20-year net present value[A]: $239.
Recommendation: Realign to establish Combat Service Support Center at
Fort Lee, VA;
20-year net present value[A]: $235.
Recommendation: Realign to relocate Air Defense Artillery Center and
School at Fort Sill, OK;
20-year net present value[A]: $221.
Recommendation: Close U.S. Army Garrison Michigan at Selfridge;
20-year net present value[A]: $212.
Recommendation: Realign defense research service-led laboratories at
multiple locations;
20-year net present value[A]: $208.
Close Navy Reserve Centers;
20-year net present value[A]: $192.
Total savings from the recommendations listed above;
20-year net present value[A]: $23,111.
Total savings from only recommendations that accrue a net savings after
20 years;
20-year net present value[A]: $27,174.
Percentage of savings from recommendations listed above of all
recommendations that accrue a net savings after 20 years: 85%.
Source: GAO analysis based on DOD data.
Note: Totals may not equal the sum of the numbers in each column, due
to rounding.
[A] In the context of BRAC, net present value is the total one-time
costs minus the total net savings that DOD expects to incur from fiscal
year 2006 through fiscal year 2025 to project 20-year savings at a 2.8
percent discount rate. We used data provided by DOD for fiscal year
2012 expected savings.
[B] In May 2005, DOD proposed closing Cannon AFB, New Mexico. In
September 2005, the BRAC Commission stated that Cannon could remain
open if DOD identified a new mission for the base. Subsequently, the
Air Force announced in June 2006 that Cannon will remain open because
it plans to activate a new mission at the base. The Air Force BRAC
Office said it claimed these savings because the decision to reallocate
Air Force resources and mission to Cannon was made after the BRAC
recommendation was approved and was therefore, a non-BRAC programmatic
decision.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Enclosure IV: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense:
Acquisition, Technology And Logistics:
3000 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, DC 20301-3000:
November 10, 2009:
Mr. Brian Lepore:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Lepore:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO Draft
Report, "Military Base Realignments And Closures BRAC 2005 Estimated
Costs Have Increased while Savings have Decreased Since Fiscal Year
2009," dated October 6, 2009 (GAO Code 351358/GAO-09-98R).
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft
report and concurs with its findings. As stated previously, even though
the BRAC 2005 round is costing more and savings are less than
originally estimated in 2005, implementation of these recommendations
is an important element of the Department's ongoing effort to reshape
our infrastructure to respond to global challenges. The report
accurately characterizes the cost growth that has occurred from the
Fiscal Year 2009 President's Budget to the Fiscal Year 2010 President's
Budget.
We continue to appreciate the audit work performed by the GAO.
Sincerely,
Dorothy Robyn:
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment):
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Military Base Realignments and Closures: Transportation Impact of
Personnel Increases Will Be Significant, but Long-Term Costs Are
Uncertain and Direct Federal Support Is Limited. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-750]. Washington, D.C.: September 9,
2009.
Military Base Realignments and Closures: DOD Needs to Update Savings
Estimates and Continue to Address Challenges in Consolidating Supply-
Related Functions at Depot Maintenance Locations. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-703]. Washington, D.C.: July 9,
2009.
Defense Infrastructure: DOD Needs to Periodically Review Support
Standards and Costs at Joint Bases and Better Inform Congress of
Facility Sustainment Funding Uses. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-336]. Washington, D.C.: March 30,
2009.
Military Base Realignments and Closures: DOD Faces Challenges in
Implementing Recommendations on Time and Is Not Consistently Updating
Savings Estimates. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-217].
Washington, D.C.: January 30, 2009.
Military Base Realignments and Closures: Army Is Developing Plans to
Transfer Functions from Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, to Aberdeen Proving
Ground, Maryland, but Challenges Remain. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1010R]. Washington, D.C.: August 13,
2008.
Defense Infrastructure: High-Level Leadership Needed to Help
Communities Address Challenges Caused by DOD-Related Growth.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-665]. Washington, D.C.:
June 17, 2008.
Defense Infrastructure: DOD Funding for Infrastructure and Road
Improvements Surrounding Growth Installations. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-602R]. Washington, D.C.: April 1,
2008.
Defense Infrastructure: Army and Marine Corps Grow the Force
Construction Projects Generally Support the Initiative. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-375]. Washington, D.C.: March 6,
2008.
Military Base Realignments and Closures: Higher Costs and Lower Savings
Projected for Implementing Two Key Supply-Related BRAC Recommendations.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-315]. Washington, D.C.:
March 5, 2008.
Defense Infrastructure: Realignment of Air Force Special Operations
Command Units to Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-244R]. Washington, D.C.: January 18,
2008.
Military Base Realignments and Closures: Estimated Costs Have Increased
and Estimated Savings Have Decreased. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-341T]. Washington, D.C.: December
12, 2007.
Military Base Realignments and Closures: Cost Estimates Have Increased
and Are Likely to Continue to Evolve. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-159]. Washington, D.C.: December 11,
2007.
Military Base Realignments and Closures: Impact of Terminating,
Relocating, or Outsourcing the Services of the Armed Forces Institute
of Pathology. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-20].
Washington, D.C.: November 9, 2007.
Military Base Realignments and Closures: Transfer of Supply, Storage,
and Distribution Functions from Military Services to Defense Logistics
Agency. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-121R].
Washington, D.C.: October 26, 2007.
Defense Infrastructure: Challenges Increase Risks for Providing Timely
Infrastructure Support for Army Installations Expecting Substantial
Personnel Growth. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1007].
Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2007.
Military Base Realignments and Closures: Plan Needed to Monitor
Challenges for Completing More Than 100 Armed Forces Reserve Centers.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1040]. Washington, D.C.:
September 13, 2007.
Military Base Realignments and Closures: Observations Related to the
2005 Round. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1203R].
Washington, D.C.: September 6, 2007.
Military Base Closures: Projected Savings from Fleet Readiness Centers
Are Likely Overstated and Actions Needed to Track Actual Savings and
Overcome Certain Challenges. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-304]. Washington, D.C.: June 29,
2007.
Military Base Closures: Management Strategy Needed to Mitigate
Challenges and Improve Communication to Help Ensure Timely
Implementation of Air National Guard Recommendations. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-641]. Washington, D.C.: May 16,
2007.
Military Base Closures: Opportunities Exist to Improve Environmental
Cleanup Cost Reporting and to Expedite Transfer of Unneeded Property.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-166]. Washington, D.C.:
January 30, 2007.
Military Bases: Observations on DOD's 2005 Base Realignment and Closure
Selection Process and Recommendations. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-905]. Washington, D.C.: July 18,
2005.
Military Bases: Analysis of DOD's 2005 Selection Process and
Recommendations for Base Closures and Realignments. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-785]. Washington, D.C.: July 1,
2005.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] This dollar amount is based on DOD's fiscal year 2010 budget
submission to Congress to pay for continuing implementation of
recommendations from prior BRAC rounds (BRAC 1988, 1991, 1993, and
1995). This amount does not include other costs associated with BRAC,
such as costs to complete environmental cleanup at BRAC bases in future
years and costs incurred by other DOD and federal agencies to provide
assistance to communities and individuals impacted by BRAC. DOD's
budget submission is reported in current dollars (i.e., it includes
projected inflation).
[2] The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002
directed DOD to consider military value as the primary consideration in
the BRAC 2005 round. Pub. L. No. 107-107, section 3002 (2001).
[3] National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Pub. L.
No. 101-510, Title XXIX (1990), as amended by the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-107, Title XXX
(2001).
[4] GAO, Military Base Closures: Updated Status of Prior Base
Realignments and Closures, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-138] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 13,
2005).
[5] H.R. Rep. No. 110-146, at 514 (2007).
[6] The 67 percent figure is slightly inflated because the September
2005 cost estimate was in fiscal year 2005 dollars, while the latest
cost estimate is in current dollars, which includes inflation.
[7] The 20-year savings estimates, calculated on a 20-year net present
value basis, are in constant fiscal year 2005 dollars (i.e., excludes
projected inflation), to be consistent with DOD and the BRAC
Commission's methodology and reporting of this estimate. Net present
value is a financial calculation that accounts for the time value of
money by determining the present value of future savings minus up-front
investment costs over a specific period of time. Determining net
present value is important because it illustrates both the up-front
investment costs and long-term savings in a single amount. In the
context of BRAC implementation, net present value is calculated for a
20-year period from 2006 through 2025.
[8] Net annual recurring savings comparisons are based on the Office of
the Secretary of Defense projections for fiscal year 2012 and beyond.
[9] GAO, Military Base Realignments and Closures: DOD Needs to Update
Savings Estimates and Continue to Address Challenges in Consolidating
Supply-Related Functions at Depot Maintenance Locations, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-703] (Washington, D.C.: July 9,
2009).
[10] GAO, Military Base Realignments and Closures: DOD Faces Challenges
in Implementing Recommendations on Time and Is Not Consistently
Updating Savings Estimates, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-217] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30,
2009).
[11] The 20-year savings over the period of 2006 through 2025 are
expressed in fiscal year 2005 dollars.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
